/m/tigers

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

For clarification, all a pitcher win tells us is that the starting pitcher pitched at least five innings and exited the game with the lead.

Not quite. It also tells us that the pitcher's team held the lead and went on to win the game. So I can see why Leyland thinks that is a good thing, even if we all know it does not tell us a whole lot about who is the best pitcher.

For clarification, all a pitcher win tells us is that the starting pitcher pitched at least five innings and exited the game with the lead.

Not quite. It also tells us that the pitcher's team held the lead and went on to win the game. So I can see why Leyland thinks that is a good thing, even if we all know it does not tell us a whole lot about who is the best pitcher.

A pitcher can also exit the game in a tie or even a deficit and still get the win.

Not quite. It also tells us that the pitcher's team held the lead and went on to win the game. So I can see why Leyland thinks that is a good thing, even if we all know it does not tell us a whole lot about who is the best pitcher.

And again it bears repeating that someone who presents himself as someone with a wealth of baseball knowledge -- more than a Hall of Fame caliber manager and more than pretty much anybody else -- fails to understand the most basic thing about the straw man he's fighting with.

When a starting pitcher gets a win, that means his team won the game. That matters.

The only thing "wrong" with starting pitcher wins is that starters' outings have become so short.(*) If both starting pitchers pitched the entire game, a "win" would be inarguably a very valuable piece of information describing how the starter pitched in the context that obtained in the game he pitched.(**)

The writer should be, but almost certainly won't be, embarrassed.

(*) Relief pitching, and only relief pitching, interferes with the signaling mechanism of the "win." The other eight players, contrary to saber myth, don't.

(**) Yeah, yeah, yeah, it isn't "fair" that the pitcher be judged on a standard and context he can't control. Boo-#######-hoo.

If we want to judge a team, the standings are listed right out in the open. If we want to judge a player, it's a different thing, or else why bother?

If every time a starter goes to the mound, he leaves the game with his team ahead and his team stays ahead and wins the game, that matters. It's comically absurd and frankly weird to suggest otherwise.

It admittedly matters less and less the earlier in the game the starter leaves.

If every time a starter goes to the mound, he leaves the game with his team ahead and his team stays ahead and wins the game, that matters. It's comically absurd and frankly weird to suggest otherwise.

That matters - but a huge chunk of that judgement is judging the team and it is comically absurd to believe otherwise.

That matters - but a huge chunk of that judgement is judging the team and it is comically absurd to believe otherwise.

Concur. But that has always been true of every baseball award.

The MVP almost always goes to someone on a playoff, or at least contending, team. You don't win manager of the year for making a 70-win team out of 55-win talent. Great hitters win a disproportionate share of Gold Gloves

We have thinks like ERA-champ, and HR-champ that recognize pure statistical achievement. Maybe it's time to add WAR-champ.

But, it's silly to pretend that the subjective baseball awards ever have been purely an evaluation of the player's context neutral performance.

Who was talking about awards? I thought we were talking about the Win stat?

edit: sorry, I guess the article mentions that.

second edit: and there's a difference between being context-neutral and judging someone based on others' actions. E.G. If a pitcher lets up 2 runs in 7 innings but loses 2-1 and we don't give him credit, that would be judging him based on the context (and also judging his teammates, but let's set that aside for the moment) - but if he lets up 2 runs in 7 innings and leaves losing 2-1, but then his teammates storm back and take the lead, giving him credit would not be judging him for what he did in context, it would be judging him for things other people did during a time he wasn't even in the game, i.e. judging him based on the context in which he wasn't pitching.

There was basically nothing at all unreasonable or objectionable about Leyland's comments the other day. He said a good pitcher is one who takes the ball every start and gives his team a good chance to win the game. That's true. He said people shouldn't attack Scherzer for having lots of run support, because he's pitched very well this year. Also true.

And yet...we have this article. Nerds like this need to stop making straw men in their mother's basement and try engaging in a real discussion sometime.

If every time a starter goes to the mound, he leaves the game with his team ahead and his team stays ahead and wins the game, that matters. It's comically absurd and frankly weird to suggest otherwise.

It matters, but the starter has zero control over anything that happens after he leaves the game. To give him credit for something that happens when he has no control in the outcome is, in your words, comically absurd.

That matters - but a huge chunk of that judgement is judging the team and it is comically absurd to believe otherwise.
Concur. But that has always been true of every baseball award.

The MVP almost always goes to someone on a playoff, or at least contending, team. You don't win manager of the year for making a 70-win team out of 55-win talent. Great hitters win a disproportionate share of Gold Gloves

We have thinks like ERA-champ, and HR-champ that recognize pure statistical achievement. Maybe it's time to add WAR-champ.

But, it's silly to pretend that the subjective baseball awards ever have been purely an evaluation of the player's context neutral performance.

Here's the thing - to argue that a pitcher "deserves" a win for leaving a game with the lead is like awarding a "run scored" to a hitter that's lifted for a pinch-runner who later scores. No one would argue that the hitter scored the run; why do people argue that a pitcher who leaves a game before it's over deserves credit for the win?

If Scherzer were pitching for a team that had just a league average offense, the odds of him being at 19 wins by now--if he were to reach the mark at all-- are rather low. His current win-loss record is more likely to reflect an appropriate 13-8 mark--I’m guessing, in case you were wondering if I used any science for that-- which would then be unimpressive through the eyes of Jim Leyland.

The league average RPG is 4.35. Scherzer has allowed 5 runs in 3 games this year, and 4 runs in 3 others.

In one of those 4 run games, he went 8 innings, and went 6 and 5 innings in the other two. I'm guessing that the Tigers' bullpen would have saved 2 of those games, which would make Scherzer's record more like 17 and 4. His ERA is 2.88 and his WHIP is 0.940.

The MVP almost always goes to someone on a playoff, or at least contending, team. You don't win manager of the year for making a 70-win team out of 55-win talent. Great hitters win a disproportionate share of Gold Gloves

Underwhelming W-L records for good pitchers happens to players on good teams, too.

Here's the thing - to argue that a pitcher "deserves" a win for leaving a game with the lead is like awarding a "run scored" to a hitter that's lifted for a pinch-runner who later scores. No one would argue that the hitter scored the run; why do people argue that a pitcher who leaves a game before it's over deserves credit for the win?

I always thought the guy who is lifted for the pinch runner should get credited for the run scored. He did the important part.

By the way, that's not entirely inconsistent with the rules (though it's inconsistent with other rules). If you replace a guy at the plate who has an 0-2 count and the next batter swings at strike three, the strikeout is recorded to the initial batter.

Underwhelming W-L records for good pitchers happens to players on good teams, too.

And when that happens, we should find out why. Did he outpitch his counterpart(s) a bunch of times, making him win-eligible, only to have his bullpen blow the leads? Or did he outpitch his counterpart(s) infrequently, meaning he didn't really do his job as much as he should have -- as "unfair" as that might appear to some?

Modeling and aggregation and imaginary games don't address these questions.

Because he outpitched his counterpart(s) while he was in the game and his team won the game.

Except, of course, when he doesn't.

Example:

Team A, Pitcher A: 5IP, 6R, team is losing 5-0 after he finishes pitching the 5th inning
Team B, Pitcher B: 5IP, 0R, team is ahead 5-0 after he finishes pitching the 5th inning, but leaves because of an injury in the top of the 6th inning.

And when that happens, we should find out why. Did he outpitch his counterpart(s) a bunch of times, making him win-eligible, only to have his bullpen blow the leads? Or did he not outpitch his counterpart(s) infrequently, meaning he didn't really do his job as much as he should have -- as "unfair" as that might appear to some?

I agree with this 100% - and we should find out why for any pitcher we are interested in. Unfortunately, simply looking at the win-loss stats of the pitcher is usually used instead of this.

Modeling and aggregation and imaginary games don't address these questions.

They do somewhat, just as the Win and Loss stats only address these questions somewhat.

Here's the thing - to argue that a pitcher "deserves" a win for leaving a game with the lead is like awarding a "run scored" to a hitter that's lifted for a pinch-runner who later scores. No one would argue that the hitter scored the run; why do people argue that a pitcher who leaves a game before it's over deserves credit for the win?

But in your example, the guy that got on base actually deserves the run a lot more than the PR.

I always thought the guy who is lifted for the pinch runner should get credited for the run scored. He did the important part.

Sometimes, but other times not as much. Such as pinch running for Prince Fielder after he hits a single. Seems to me that the pinch runner has done a fair amount of the work, though certainly not all of it. Of course, in that case, Fielder would not either, even if he stays in the game, as both need help from either their teammate or the defense (wild pitch, etc.). But that is an inherent limitation in runs as a stat.

Following up on the pinch-runner, wouldn't crediting the initial guy with the run scored be entirely consistent with the way the play is scored on the pitching side of the ledger? We credit the pitcher who allowed the guy to reach base with the Runs Against if he later comes around to score while a reliever is in the game. Shouldn't we do likewise for the runner?

We credit the pitcher who allowed the guy to reach base with the Runs Against if he later comes around to score while a reliever is in the game. Shouldn't we do likewise for the runner?

This just highlights the fact that back in the 1800s, they should have recognized the need for 1/4 runs based on the bases allowed before being replaced.
Give up a lead-off double, and the reliever allows him to score? Each pitcher is credited with 1/2 run.
Give up a triple and that guy scores on the next pitcher's wild pitch? First pitcher is credited with 3/4 run, the second guy with 1/4 run.

Team A, Pitcher A: 5IP, 6R, team is losing 5-0 after he finishes pitching the 5th inning
Team B, Pitcher B: 5IP, 0R, team is ahead 5-0 after he finishes pitching the 5th inning, but leaves because of an injury in the top of the 6th inning.

The win goes to Pitcher A, even though he sucked and he left the game with his team losing 5-0.

Except that Pitcher A did not actually leave the game until after his team started scoring those runs (assuming he was pinch hit for in that inning). If it's an AL game, he didn't leave the game until the new pitcher actually took the mound.

I dunno, the Win rule seems to me logical enough, and written under the assumption that the quirky stuff evens out or can be otherwise understood after a little thought. Same with the PR convention: in his last two years with the Mets, Rusty Staub scored two runs in the 43 times he reached base (excluding HR). The reason is pretty clear, why worry too much about how it's recorded.

The more basic fact is that one guy, even a CG starting pitcher, doesn't win a game, and never has (the occasional Rick Wise aside, and even then there were some IF/OF fielding chances, and a catcher). But we sort of know that already too, or at least one hopes we do.

Except that Pitcher A did not actually leave the game until after his team started scoring those runs (assuming he was pinch hit for in that inning). If it's an AL game, he didn't leave the game until the new pitcher actually took the mound.

If a pitcher has walked off the field in a game, never to return, common sense tells us that he has left the game. He is no longer playing, his contributions to the game are over.

If he was pinch-hit for by the leadoff guy in the inning in which his team scored, then he has left the game in every sense.

If a pitcher has walked off the field in a game, never to return, common sense tells us that he has left the game. He is no longer playing, his contributions to the game are over.

If he was pinch-hit for by the leadoff guy in the inning in which his team scored, then he has left the game in every sense.

It's a fussy and semantic dispute, but no -- he actually hasn't left the game at that point. If the game gets rained out right after he's pinch-hit for, he's the only pitcher that shows up on the box score for his team.

Your real dispute, and I guess it's valid, is that we'd be measuring his five innings pitched against five innings plus pitched by his counterpart(s). So amend it to say "the vast majority of the time a starter gets a win, he's outpitched his counterpart during his time in the game."

It's a fussy and semantic dispute, but no -- he actually hasn't left the game at that point. If the game gets rained out right after he's pinch-hit for, he's the only pitcher that shows up on the box score for his team.

How many pitchers show up in the boxscore doesn't prove whether someone left a game?

If a pitcher goes 8 innings, and is pinch-hit for in the bottom of the 9th and his team gets a walk-off win, he has left the game before the end of the game no matter how you spin it or how many pitchers show up in the box score.

If a pitcher goes 8 innings, and is pinch-hit for in the bottom of the 9th and his team gets a walk-off win, he has left the game before the end of the game no matter how you spin it or how many pitchers show up in the box score.

He wouldn't have gone 8 innings in that scenario, he'd have gone 9. He'd have pitched 9 innings and given up fewer runs than his counterpart(s) gave up in less than nine innings. A complete game win is a win in the purest sense and has obvious meaning. It would be absurd for the annals of baseball not to record that on his ledger.

Except that Pitcher A did not actually leave the game until after his team started scoring those runs (assuming he was pinch hit for in that inning). If it's an AL game, he didn't leave the game until the new pitcher actually took the mound.

He pitches 5 crappy innings, and at the end of the 5th inning his team is losing 5-0.
As he walks to the dugout, the manager says "Sorry, pal. You didn't have your stuff today. Hit the showers."
A relief pitcher steps up in the bullpen and starts throwing.
The starting pitcher has left the game for all intents and purposes.

You are suggesting that he should get credit for his team's results because he's standing in the shower when it happens?

Edit: This line of argument original stemmed from the mistaken pronouncement that "Because he outpitched his counterpart(s) while he was in the game and his team won the game."
That statement was demonstrated to be false without much effort.

If a pitcher goes 8 innings, and is pinch-hit for in the bottom of the 9th and his team gets a walk-off win, he has left the game before the end of the game no matter how you spin it or how many pitchers show up in the box score.

Jim Leyland has been a manager for 22 seasons. No one over the age of 10 who pays attention to baseball should be surprised that Leyland is defending his players. There may not be a better player's manager in baseball.

The "problem," such as it is, only affects road pitchers. As the boomeranged-upon example in 30 shows, a home pitcher who "leaves the game" will always have pitched as many or more innings than his counterpart(s) even when he gets "lucky." (*) If someone wants to come up with a "lucky road win" set of criteria and throw them out, no problem.

(*) Home pitcher down 5-0, pinch hit for in the bottom of the sixth. His team scores six in the bottom of the sixth. He's given up five runs in six innings, his counterparts have given up six runs in six innings. He's outpitched his counterparts. No issue.

He wouldn't have gone 8 innings in that scenario, he'd have gone 9. He'd have pitched 9 innings and given up fewer runs than his counterpart(s) gave up in less than nine innings. A complete game win is a win in the purest sense and has obvious meaning. It would be absurd for the annals of baseball not to record that on his ledger.

My fault, yes he went 9. Also my fault for heading down an unnecessary sidepath about defining when a pitcher has "left the game." You seemed to think that if only one pitcher was listed in the boxscore he therefore never left the game.

So who gets the win in your construct?

Still give it to the same guy, but just realize the shortcomings (or quirks) of the stat.

Jim Leyland has been a manager for 22 seasons. No one over the age of 10 who pays attention to baseball should be surprised that Leyland is defending his players.

First of all, this. Of course he's going to "defend" his guy.

But what, exactly, is he defending him from? As has been pointed out any number of times no one is arguing that Scherzer has been anything but excellent this year. No one. The arguement is that he's not excellent because he's won a bunch of games; it's that he's won a bunch of games because he's excellent and at times the chips have fallen his way.

EDIT: Honestly, it looks like the "pro win" crowd is trying to pick a fight where there is none, and some in the "anti win" crowd (like the author) are only too happy to oblige.

I said it in another thread, but any stat which can't be awarded at the time of performance is a worthless stat. Just judge him on the actual performing of his job, the pitches he throws and the results thereof.

Or, even better, just stop calling it wins and losses. Teams win and lose. Players don't.

EDIT: Honestly, it looks like the "pro win" crowd is trying to pick a fight where there is none, and some in the "anti win" crowd (like the author) are only too happy to oblige.

See, I think it is the other way around. The "anti-win" crowd sees the head way they have in the past (with King Felix and others), and is looking to kill off the stat (see Brian Kenny leading the charge). Their problem is that the picked a poor time to do it, because the guy lapping the field is wins is also doing great in the other stats.

Just judge him on the actual performing of his job, the pitches he throws and the results thereof.

That isn't his job. When a closer comes in to pitch the bottom of the ninth with his team up two, his job is to give up one run or less. (And if he gives up one and only one run, it's essentially meaningless that he gave up one and not zero.) The next night, his job might be to give up less than one run. The job is context-dependent.

That misdefinition of the pitcher's job is the source of a lot of this debate.

I'd also note that if you really want to strip the model down to the things the pitcher has control over, it would be stripped down to the pitches he throws. The results thereof are out of his control. He can make a great pitch and it can be raked; he can make a shitty pitch and it can be whiffed.

That misdefinition of the pitcher's job is the source of a lot of this debate.

Ok, but as SP's are now not responsible for pitching lots of complete games, the SP's job is not strictly to outpitch his counterpart, as you seem to think it is.

And if you want to have a wide interpretation of the word "context" to include events that happen after the SP leaves the game, then a pitcher can leave the game having allowed more runs than his counterpart but still be considered to have done his job as long as his counterpart's relievers blow the game - because if the whole game is the "context" he has done his job enough for his team to win, and like the closer who allows only 1 run with a 2 run lead, it was essentially meaningless that he allowed more runs than his counterpart. And, not surprisingly, in this big-context view the Win stat usually fails to credit the SP.

Since there's no appreciable way to separate great pitches that got raked from shitty pitches that got raked (and all pitches in between), I believe the results *in aggregate* serve as a very good proxy for the quality of a pitcher's pitches *in aggregate.* I am willing to accept a pitchFX style argument at the margins for whether Pitcher A or Pitcher B has better stuff / been a bit luckier in terms of results, but by definition a "great pitch" is one that is harder to hit and so in aggregate they will be hit less often. Greg Maddux threw both greater pitches and more great pitches than, say, Denny Neagle.

Also, most pitcher's jobs I would believe are not abstractly "don't give up runs", but rather "get outs," and usually "get this one guy out at the plate." Only occasionally is there anything more strategic than that ("I'd like to induce a double play ball", "I'd rather walk him than give him a pitch to hit", etc.) and so really their only job is to throw the pitch where they've agreed to.

I don't think it has anything to do with runs. Now their performance may be colored by the number of runs their team has scored, but I've always found it odd that this is somehow justified and cool as "pitching to the score" instead of what it sounds like, which is slacking (not that I'm one to talk, but still, that's what it is.)

But what, exactly, is he defending him from? As has been pointed out any number of times no one is arguing that Scherzer has been anything but excellent this year. No one. The arguement is that he's not excellent because he's won a bunch of games; it's that he's won a bunch of games because he's excellent and at times the chips have fallen his way.

True. But I also haven't heard a single person advance the argument that Scherzer should win the Cy Young because he's 19-2 and "just knows how to win." Nobody is saying "ignore Scherzer's (nonexistant) lackluster numbers, he's just pitching to the score and demonstrating the will to win." The article is mocking an argument that nobody is making, including Leyland himself.

19-1 got a lot of play in the media, but it was as much about how unusual the accomplishment was as it was about the Cy Young. It was a legitimate historical oddity that, with a few more wins, could have been unprecedented.

By the way, that's not entirely inconsistent with the rules (though it's inconsistent with other rules). If you replace a guy at the plate who has an 0-2 count and the next batter swings at strike three, the strikeout is recorded to the initial batter.

I think that's true for any 2-strike count, even 3-2. Parsing that for PR, if he starts on 1st, he gets the run; on 3rd, guy he replaced gets it. 2nd? Still working on it - maybe how the replaced guy got there. Double, he gets it; ROE then BB, give it to the PR. Of course, none of that will ever happen.

But what, exactly, is he defending him from? As has been pointed out any number of times no one is arguing that Scherzer has been anything but excellent this year. No one. The arguement is that he's not excellent because he's won a bunch of games; it's that he's won a bunch of games because he's excellent and at times the chips have fallen his way.

doesn't TFA state that Scherzer would be a 13-8 pitcher without the "luck" wins. So I guess the article linked is saying that Scherzer has not been a great and deserving pitcher.

True. But I also haven't heard a single person advance the argument that Scherzer should win the Cy Young because he's 19-2 and "just knows how to win." Nobody is saying "ignore Scherzer's (nonexistant) lackluster numbers, he's just pitching to the score and demonstrating the will to win." The article is mocking an argument that nobody is making, including Leyland himself.

But plenty of people were arguing that Scherzer was the clear Cy Young favorite a few weeks ago when it was not at ALL clear that he had actually been the best pitcher up until that point. And right now, Chris Sale is basically having an identical season to Scherzer, except for the Wins. So it's worth asking why it's so clear that Scherzer should win. I don't think anyone is saying that it will be a travesty when Scherzer wins, but it's worth noting that his case on the underlying merits is merely good, not great - and it's nowhere close to a runaway.

If Scherzer scuffles over the next three weeks, but manages to scrape two weak wins and a couple no decisions in games where he gets hit hard (a hypothetical, but not a completely unreasonable one) - while Sale or Darvish or Felix go Hershiser on us, it will once again be problematic when Scherzer's 21-2 record wins him a Cy Young that he wouldn't otherwise deserve.

This, of course, does not excuse stupidity on the other side. Fixating on Leyland's comments is silly because they were perfectly anodyne and basically reasonable. And the article's assertion that Scherzer's underlying stats ought to produce a 13-8 record doesn't seem particularly plausible either. But it's not silly to use Scherzer's extreme W/L record (which is accompanied by a perfectly good Cy Young style season, but is absolutely not a season for the ages) as a hook to talk about the silliness of the Win as a stat.

doesn't TFA state that Scherzer would be a 13-8 pitcher without the "luck" wins. So I guess the article linked is saying that Scherzer has not been a great and deserving pitcher

Worse than that. From the article:

His current win-loss record is more likely to reflect an appropriate 13-8 mark--I’m guessing, in case you were wondering if I used any science for that-- which would then be unimpressive through the eyes of Jim Leyland.

So he apparently just made up a record to attribute to Scherzer. I don't see that really helping his argument.

he apparently just made up a record to attribute to Scherzer. I don't see that really helping his argument

It doesn't. If you simply subtract two Tiger runs from every Scherzer decision – to give him more Sale-like run support – he's 16-4. If you monkey with the distribution of those runs to make it more pessmistic, he goes 13-8. If you put him on the Houston Astros, he goes 8-13. If put him on the Astros, then kidnap his loved ones and send him notes saying BETTER LOSE TODAY SHERZER OR ITS CURTEINS FOR THEM, he probably still goes 3-18.

And right now, Chris Sale is basically having an identical season to Scherzer, except for the Wins.

And Scherzer's huge lead in WHIP -- 0.940 to 1.055. And Scherzer's lead in K's/9 -- 9.9 to 9.5.

Sale apparently has the lead in WAR -- God knows why, he doesn't even have a better ERA+ than Scherzer so it shouldn't be park factors -- but that and a quarter could have gotten you the weekday Washington Post 20 years ago.

... Jesus, Scherzer's HR rate is better than Sale's too. Scherzer has a better HR rate, a better K rate, a way better WHIP, a better ERA, and a better ERA+. He's pitched more innings than Sale. The only thing Sale's even been better than him at is walk rate.

Hasn't Sale started fewer games? I think he has more innings per start than Scherzer. Of course, I don't have a clue how WAR is calculated, so that may be irrelevant or even a point in the opposite direction.

And Scherzer's huge lead in WHIP -- 0.940 to 1.055. And Scherzer's lead in K's/9 -- 9.9 to 9.5.

Like I said, basically identical.

How does Sale have more WAR? That's absurd.

Not very hard to figure out. His park factor is more favorable to hitters, meaning that the expected offensive production of his opponents is higher. And the defense behind him is (according to BB-Ref at least) terrible. And that slightly overcomes his slightly worse RA.

WAR doesn't care about HR rate, K rate, WHIP, ERA, or ERA+. So I'm not sure why you think those would influence it. This is perhaps a reason to not rely too heavily on WAR as a measure for pitchers, which I'm fully on board with.

But that defensive deficit certainly helps to explain Scherzer's WHIP advantage. And basically all the rest of those 'superior' numbers are pretty much within the margin of error. He's got 3 less HR, 10 more strikeouts, a 0.09 advantage in ERA, and a 1 point advantage in ERA+. In two extra innings. In a slightly better pitching environment, with slightly better defense. Over 85% of a season, that's two VERY similar pitching performances.

Because he does not, or at least not in any meaningful way. As of today, BR has Sale at 6.2 and Scherzer at 6.1 We don't have enough precision to call that anything other than tied. Fangraphs has Scherzer at 5.7 and Sale at 4.7, a clear lead for Scherzer.

I won't pretend to know the difference in how each calculates WAR for pitching, but at least one source has Scherzer clearly ahead of Sale, though Fangraphs has Scherzer still second but essentially tied with Hernandez at 5.8 (BR has Hernandez at 5.2).

Sean answered this in one of the other threads. 3 factors. Sale has pitched in a slightly tougher set of parks (BBRef calculates this separately) and (related in all probability) has faced higher scoring opposition. And the Tigers (while not good) have been better defensively.

But seriously, anybody who's worried by a .2 difference in WAR just doesn't understand the concept of method error. It's certainly not less than .5 for starting pitchers.

#57 I think you'll find the bWAR cares about K rates -- albeit indirectly. The more balls in play for a pitcher the greater the importance of the defensive support (I'm only pretty confident of this, not absolutely certain)

I don't really care about WAR, other than to the extent that it might explain why people have set up the win strawman with Scherzer. Sale's WAR lead helps clear up the motivation for the strawman -- though even if Sale didn't lead in WAR some zealots would still be shitting on Scherzer for having so many wins.

I don't really care about WAR, other than to the extent that it might explain why people have set up the win strawman with Scherzer. Sale's WAR lead helps clear up the motivation for the strawman -- though even if Sale didn't lead in WAR some zealots would still be shitting on Scherzer for having so many wins.

So...you brought up WAR in order to respond to an argument that no one was making, in order to clarify that the argument they weren't making is actually a stand-in for a different argument they're also not making?

So...you brought up WAR in order to respond to an argument that no one was making, in order to clarify that the argument they weren't making is actually a stand-in for a different argument they're also not making?

The next night, his job might be to give up less than one run. The job is context-dependent.

No, it's not. You are essentially saying that it's the pitcher's job to "pitch to the score".

A pitcher's job is to not give up hits, or walks, or even allowing the batter to make good contact on a pitch.
Throw the ball so the batter can't hit it cleanly, but not in a way that walks the batter.

That's it.
All this "context of the win" stuff is just people trying to shoehorn a team statistic (wins/losses) onto an individual, just like football does with QBs and hockey does with goalies.

A pitcher's job is to not give up hits, or walks, or even allowing the batter to make good contact on a pitch.
Throw the ball so the batter can't hit it cleanly, but not in a way that walks the batter.

W-L is a statistic, not the only statistic. Certainly it is difficult to argue that a 19-1 record isn't impressive. Does it mean that this pitcher is out of this world? Not necessarily. But, not knowing anything else, given the choice of a 19-1 and a 10-10, that choice should be obvious.

You realize bWAR is innings pitched, runs allowed, park factors, and team defense adjustment right? You don't have to wonder anything. Sale's pitched 187.2 innings and given up 70 runs, Scherzer's pitched 190.1 innings and given up 64 runs. So before the adjustments, Scherzer's been like .63 WAR better. Sale's defense is estimated to have cost him 3 runs this year, while Scherzer's cost him 2, so we're down to .53 difference. B-R also says that Cellular Field inflates offense more than Comerica does and that makes up the gap*. By WAR, the two have been within a run of eachother this year. Scherzer has more strikeouts, Sale has fewer walks and a better K:BB ratio. The only stat that favors Scherzer is W/L.

*If you don't believe in park factors, Iwakuma has been just as good as Scherzer with 191 innings and 66 runs allowed.

As for the validity of wins as a metric, RTG has it right. It's a team metric (includes contribution from offense, defense and bullpen) that's being turned into an individual metric for some reason. Even if pitcher's pitched complete games every game, it would still be an invalid metric. There's no reason why the Tigers offense should be attached to Scherzer's performance.

You are essentially saying that it's the pitcher's job to "pitch to the score".

A closer's job in the bottom of the ninth is indeed to pitch to the score. If his team is up two runs and he gets three outs before the other team scores two runs, it's utterly irrelevant whether he gives up one run or zero runs. If he gives up one run, it makes his ERA and WAR worse than if he'd given up zero, but the run he gave up is nonetheless utterly irrelevant.

A starter's job isn't really to "pitch to the score." But his job and the way the caliber of his job is properly measured is still context-dependent. A starter who gives up no runs in six innings when his team scores ten in the first hasn't done as good a job, properly measured, as a starter who gives up no runs in six innings when his team hasn't scored in those six innings.

You realize bWAR is innings pitched, runs allowed, park factors, and team defense adjustment right? You don't have to wonder anything. Sale's pitched 187.2 innings and given up 70 runs, Scherzer's pitched 190.1 innings and given up 64 runs. So before the adjustments, Scherzer's been like .63 WAR better. Sale's defense is estimated to have cost him 3 runs this year, while Scherzer's cost him 2, so we're down to .53 difference. B-R also says that Cellular Field inflates offense more than Comerica does and that makes up the gap*. By WAR, the two have been within a run of eachother this year. Scherzer has more strikeouts, Sale has fewer walks and a better K:BB ratio. The only stat that favors Scherzer is W/L.

I wasn't wondering. Of course there are adjustments; if there weren't, Sale wouldn't have more WAR. But those adjustments are silly, if they wind up giving Sale more WAR than Scherzer given Scherzer's advantage in essentially every meaningful category.

There's no reason why the Tigers offense should be attached to Scherzer's performance.

The Tigers offense is the context in which Scherzer pitches in the real world. He might not in your imaginary world, but I try not to concern myself with fantasyland.

There's no reason why the Tigers offense should be attached to Scherzer's performance.

It is tied to his performance by the structure of baseball, and that team wins/losses are distributed in discreet chunks usually happening over 9 innings. But maybe you just mean the evaluation of Scherzer's performance shouldn't be tied to the Tigers offense.

I wasn't wondering. Of course there are adjustments; if there weren't, Sale wouldn't have more WAR. But those adjustments are silly, if they wind up giving Sale more WAR than Scherzer given Scherzer's advantage in essentially every meaningful category.

Fine, ignore the adjustments. Now Scherzer and Iwakuma have been equal this year.

You realize bWAR is innings pitched, runs allowed, park factors, and team defense adjustment right? You don't have to wonder anything. Sale's pitched 187.2 innings and given up 70 runs, Scherzer's pitched 190.1 innings and given up 64 runs. So before the adjustments, Scherzer's been like .63 WAR better. Sale's defense is estimated to have cost him 3 runs this year, while Scherzer's cost him 2, so we're down to .53 difference. B-R also says that Cellular Field inflates offense more than Comerica does and that makes up the gap*. By WAR, the two have been within a run of eachother this year. Scherzer has more strikeouts, Sale has fewer walks and a better K:BB ratio. The only stat that favors Scherzer is W/L.

Thank you for that explanation. Do you know how Fangraphs differs in its calculation of WAR (seeing as it has Scherzer up 5.7 to 4.7)?

A starter who gives up no runs in six innings when his team scores ten in the first hasn't done as good a job, properly measured, as a starter who gives up no runs in six innings when his team hasn't scored in those six innings.

The value of the runs saved by the second guy are more valuable than the runs saved by the first guy and thus the second guy has had a more valuable and, IMO, "better" performance. WPA would say the same thing, wouldn't it?

Scherzer leads Iwakuma in essentially every category, too. His ERA's better, his WHIP's way better, his K rate's way better, his HR rate is way better and on and on.

I thought you just cared about results? They've given up about the same amount of runs in the same amount of innings.

But fine according to your new category of "selected peripheral performance, but not adjusted for park for some reason", Felix Hernandez is your winner with more innings, a better K:BB ratio and fewer home runs allowed.

I supposed now you're going to argue that WHIP is the "one true stat". Can you just cut the bullshit and be honest here? If you ignore W/L, Scherzer is essentially tied with 2-3 other pitchers for the best pitcher in the league.

Do you know how Fangraphs differs in its calculation of WAR (seeing as it has Scherzer up 5.7 to 4.7)?

FanGraphs use FIP (based on K, BB and HR) instead of RA and doesn't make a defensive adjustment (since FIP already takes defense out of the equation by ignoring balls in play). Because fWAR ignores non HR batted balls (except in terms of how they impact innings pitched), it's generally considered less evaluative and more predictive. Of course pitchers do have more control over K, BB and HR than they do singles, so the issue is not so cut and dry.

Wait, so if Pitcher A gives up 18 3-0 count home runs that are all miraculously robbed by his all-Trout defense and walks out ahead 1-0, and Pitcher B throws 54 consecutive unhittable cutter strikes and walks out ahead 2-0, you think Pitcher A's performance is better? You said yourself great pitches can get raked, but then you completely ignore variance in the outcomes when it comes to evaluating overall pitching effectiveness. Do you congratulate lotto winners on their entrepreneurial acumen, too?

Still give it to the same guy, but just realize the shortcomings (or quirks) of the stat.

I think most of us have been there for awhile. It's a little like Churchill's line about democracy being completely awful - unless compared to any other system. (Too lazy too look up the exact quote, but that's the flavor of it.)

Wins and losses were not compiled in the early days of Major League Baseball. Henry Chadwick began the practice of awarding pitching wins in the 1885 Spalding Guide, but this did not catch on immediately. The two main publications of the 1890s, The Sporting News and Sporting Life used different criteria to attribute wins, an issue which only became more complex as the use of relief pitchers expanded and complete games began to decline in number.

In 1903, when National League President Harvey Pulliam hired John Heydler to be the league secretary, the young Heydler made it one of his goals to standardize scoring practices, and in particular for the attribution of wins. He issued guidelines to official scorers that required a starter to pitch "the majority" of a ballgame to be eligible for a win. There were a number of exceptions to this however, for example if a pitcher left a game early with his team enjoying a big lead, or if he left because of an injury (which led to pitchers making sure to tell reporters that they had been removed from the game after giving up a pair of hits with a a one-run lead in the 5th because they had an upset stomach or had felt a twinge in their elbow, and for no other reason), and so on. The league president would often overturn the decision of the game's official scorer. The latter was a particular problem in the American League, where President Ban Johnson would make such decisions on what appears in retrospect to be whims and personal bias, rather than any set criteria. Game 2 of the 1929 World Series, in which George Earnshaw was credited with a win while pitching only four innings, is an example of the practice of the time (in this case, the prevailing American League scoring practice of the time was followed).

As the use of relief pitchers continued to expand, confusion only grew, as scorers began to interpret the "majority of the game" provision more liberally, crediting the starter with the win when he had pitched more than any reliever even if that amounted to only three innings or so. Finally the modern rule was adopted before the start of the 1950 season, and while there are a couple of games every year in which the identity of the winning pitcher is left to the discretion of the official scorer, the five-inning rule for starters is now the universal norm and there are no more aberrant wins attributed.

And that has to do with park effects, lets say pitcher A, goes 19-1 with an ERA of 4.0. And pitcher B goes 12-9 with an ERA of 3.0. WEll obviously pitcher B has a case that he was a more effective pitcher. Pitcher B was better at preventing runs, obviously.

Pitcher A's case for the Cy Young is based on decent pitching, but has a lot to do with his own teammates and the tremendous run support they gave him. Pitcher A had nothing to do with the run support he never got a hit. His own case was bolstered by events competely out of his control, namely his own teammates and their timely hitting.

100 years later, earstwhile researchers pursue the great controversy and they discover a perplexing situation.

15 of Pitcher As games, came in Wrigley field, where further research shows that conditions on those days were extremely favorable for hitters. Several of pitcher As teammates who had never hit HRs before managed to do so in the favorable conditions.

Meanwhile it turns out that pitcher B was really quite ordinary, his ERA was depressed by pitching in large, dry ball parks, where the ball did not carry. HIs 12-8 record was actually a good reflection of his ability, because nobody, not his own teammates or anyone else was hitting all that well on those days.

Get it? WHile you can deride pitching to the score and other justifications for looking at wins, it is also possible those pitchers with ERAs that dont fit their w/l reocrd couldd have been pitching in high run environments.

But how would we know? Admittedly it would be hard to really determine day to day park effects. Pitcher A's own effectiveness would mitigate against this as well.

BUt the last time I read about park effects, the idea I got was that park effects vary quite a bit from year to year. Even high run places like Wrigley can be low run environments sometimes. This is believed to be due to weather but it is not at all clear.

THe pt. being that even on a day to day basis park effects can vary. Look at the recent Boston/Ny series. Obviously a high scoring series. Does it mean both sides pitchers were terrible? or was the environment just high scoring? WIthout looking deeply at things like humidity and such, there really is no way to tell is there? I.e. any outcome we measure, a hit a K, an RBI there is no way to tell if it had more to do with the pitcher or the batter. Right?

I could show you a set of yearly records for a league with no names, and there is no way you could tell me it it was MLB, or Nippon baseball, or college baseball or little league. So the actual compiled stats, cannot tell us that sort of thing. Just because a game is high scoring does not mean the pitching sucked, or that the hitting was great in an absolute sense. All those outcomes are relative, the relative difference between pitchers and hitters.

ANd thus it follows, that there is really no way to tell if someone is 9-9 with a low ERA if he's really a good pitcher or was just pitching in low run environments. There's no way to really tell is there?

So that is another way to put SBB argument. It is not outlandish at all. In fact, there might be some logic to it.

ANd thus it follows, that there is really no way to tell if someone is 9-9 with a low ERA if he's really a good pitcher or was just pitching in low run environments. There's no way to really tell is there?

You're overstating your case. There is some logic to the idea that W/L contains some information about the run environment on a given day, but the spread in MLB hitting talent is fairly small and the spread in ballpark impact is fairly small as well (using Patriot's 5 year park factors, in 2006 the difference between COL and Petco was only 17% which is much less than the difference between a 4.00 and a 3.00 ERA in your example). Plus we already adjust for ballpark in ERA+ and WAR (obviously), so you'd have to argue that a pitcher's distribution of ballparks effected him much differently than it would effect the average pitcher over a large sample size.

I'm guessing 95% of the deviation of W/L records from expect W/L given ERA+ is random variation of team offense/opposing pitcher. W/L most likely do contain some addition information, but once you adjust for the obvious factors (ballpark distribution, quality of opposition, clutch pitching) W/L is almost certainly useless.

so you'd have to argue that a pitcher's distribution of ballparks effected him much differently than it would effect the average pitcher over a large sample size.

Did you miss the part where I said that weather is believed to be the cause for the yearly variance in park effects? Obviously weather changes on a daily basis. THus it is quite likely that the run environment in a given ball park is changing on a daily basis.

Your pt about averaging stuff out in the long run "we already adjust for ball park in ERA" seems to miss my point entirely. THe pt is that park effects could be changing on a daily basis.

Of course over the course of a season these effects are likely to balance out for a given stadium's park effect. But a pitchers w/l record is a small sample size. Yes? THerefore this smaller data set might be more subject to random fluctuations in daily park effects.

But those adjustments are silly, if they wind up giving Sale more WAR than Scherzer given Scherzer's advantage in essentially every meaningful category.

Larry Walker has advantages in essentially every meaningful category on a whole lot of hitters - to pick one at semi-random, he has a higher average, OBP, and SLG than Dick Allen, drew more walks and had fewer strikeouts, hit more doubles at a higher rate and more homers at a nearly identical rate, and scored and drove in more runs on a per-game basis.

Because of that, should we throw out the era and park adjustments that give Allen a 15-point advantage in OPS+?

#91There's a study in RSB by Harold Brooks that suggests ~70% of changes in park factors are what amounts to statistical noise.

But the way park factors are derived makes total sense to me. 3 year park factors rate to filter out most of the noise, and they're based on the runs scored and allowed.

I can't tell you what changed in 2011 to move the park from mild pitcher's park to mild hitter's park (it's become a slightly better hitter's park each year since -- which is interesting), but then I've never been all that interested in that particular question. The runs scored and allowed defines the offensive context.

So I'm not sure what you mean by "didn't inflate offense as much as the numbers said". You can't just look at home/road numbers since some of the road games were in NL parks and having a pitcher bat lowers run scoring by ~5-6%.

That said, last year the Tiger hitters hit quite a bit better at home than on the road (+60 runs) and Tiger pitchers pitched a little better on the road (-12 runs). Doesn't change the dynamics a great deal if you eliminate the interleague games (as BBRef does to calculate park factors)

Now if your point is that not every player is equally affected by any given park, it's true. That's why park adjusted numbers give you value in context but don't necessarily tell you how well (or poorly) a player is suited to the park he's playing in.

I understand your point, you're just drastically overstating your case. If a Scherzer starts 16 games in Comerica spread over the course of a season it's likely that he faced average weather conditions for the ballpark and any deviation from that is going to be tiny. For the other 16 games, W/L could possibly tell you something about the weather on a given day, but that's going to be dwarfed by random variation.

Besides if you wanted to account for run environment you wouldn't use a binary stat like W/L, you'd just take runs allowed vs. runs scored by opponent and figure out the Pythag expectation. It's a nice idea, but W/L likely has almost zero explanatory power after looking at RA, IP, park factors, opposing batters, etc.